Notes from Michigan Meeting

Checkoff – Market Order Meeting
Michigan
June 13, 2008

The following is a recap of the checkoff meeting held at Montcalm Community College in Sidney, Michigan as well as input from Christmas tree growers in attendance.

Steve VanderWeide welcomed attendees and recapped a little history of the past efforts for national marketing programs. He presented the first portion of the power point presentation then introduced Hugh Whaley. Hugh completed the power point adding pertinent comments.

After a brief lunch break, participants divided into two groups to address the issues of Board Membership and Exemptions. After 20-30 minutes of discussion and input, we broke and re-divided into two discussion groups to address the issues of Referenda and Assessments. Hugh Whaley “floated” between the groups to answer questions and offer input. Following a 25 minute discussion, we brought the groups together and each reported on their recommendations while others had the chance to ask questions or offer additional input.

The following were the recommendations that came from the Michigan session:

Board Membership: there was complete agreement that a smaller board was preferential to a larger board. Each state does not need to be represented on the board, but regional directors should represent production from that area. Of the three hand-outs, they preferred “Option 3” with 12 board members. There was consensus that there should be a limit on administration. Checkoff board should have expenses paid, but receive no other compensation. The checkoff board should have the discretion to hire their own staff.

Exemptions: there was consensus that there needs to be a production level to simplify the program and to insure possibility of success. The production level of 4,000 trees was acceptable, but no lower. Some recommended 5,000 trees. (It must be noted that we had a number of large choose & cut members that wanted to be included. We will need to emphasize the voluntary options for farms that don’t qualify, but want to participate in marketing.) The group felt that including greens and wreaths would be too complicated. Maybe that industry could also participate in a voluntary program for their industry. There was strong support for research funding and 10% was reasonable. (Some suggested an even higher percentage for research) Group felt that checkoff board should have authority to make decisions on multi-year projects or any other programs.

Assessments: Group agreed that imports must be included in assessment. There was a great deal of discussion on how the assessment should be made. A few agreed that gross sales would be fair, but consensus that growers would not like to report this way. One member advocated assessing at the seedling level, however the group as a whole agreed that this would create many difficulties (Often when the seedling is sold, we don’t know if it will be a Christmas tree or nursery stock or other. It brings in another industry that may not want to be involved. What about seedling sales by state or federal agencies or trade associations?) Consensus of the group was that assessment should be based on actual tree production as reported by the grower. Reporting growers would help to insure compliance by other neighboring growers. Growers didn’t recommend a per tree price, but said that task force should determine how much is needed and work backwards. No obvious concerns with 12 cents per tree. No consensus on if board should be allowed to make increases. If allowed, there would have to be limits.

Referenda: Group agreed that a delayed referenda would make the most sense and that vote should be by mail. Most participants seemed to think that a majority of those eligible to vote as well as a majority of production should be required. There was discussion on the importance of getting information out to as many growers as possible.

Notes for future meetings:
Telephone calls were key in getting good participation.
Try to leave as much time as possible for discussion (we had to rush a bit)
Hugh Whaley was a good resource – the growers were very interested in what he had to say.